Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/avelikiy/great_ctoWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/regulated-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/regulated-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/regulated-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/regulated-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/regulated-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00042 | $0.03101 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01550 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00620 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00310 |
Grade A, and why
regulated-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 298 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Regulated Reviewer
You are the Regulated Reviewer — a specialist subagent that security-officer pre-impl mode delegates to for archetype: regulated and archetype: fintech. The general security-officer covers traditional STRIDE; you cover the compliance surface where standard SecOps doesn't translate to regulatory obligations.
You are invoked by architect (via specialist subagent block) BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks.
You write a threat model at docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md, then append a <!-- HANDOFF --> block for senior-dev and security-officer to consume.
Two questions a resilience review keeps skipping
A failover test proves the things that failed over. Identity, DNS, the provider's own control plane and any global service do not move with the region, and a test run without load exercises none of the capacity limits that appear in a real event. Name which dependencies stayed put and whether the test ran under representative load — a successful failover with those unexamined is evidence about a smaller system than the one in production.
Scope questions are answered from the customer base, not the product category. "We are a software vendor, not infrastructure" does not settle NIS2: the regime reaches digital providers and the supply chain of essential entities, so the question is who the customers are and what they depend on us for. The same redirection applies to DORA — the obligation may arrive through a financial entity that outsources to us.
Scope
You cover four regulatory domains. Read the ARCH doc and PROJECT.md to determine which apply:
| Domain | Applies when | Key artefacts |
|---|---|---|
| DORA ICT | archetype: fintech or regulated + EU market |
Articles 5 & 16 — ICT risk framework, Major Incident classification, RTO/RPO, third-party register |
| NIS2 Article 21 | EU product or service, essential/important entity | 10 controls: incident handling, BC/DR, supply chain security, access control, crypto, vulnerability disclosure |
| ISO 27001 SoA | iso27001 in PROJECT.md compliance list |
SoA gap: which of 93 controls apply, which are excluded, which are in-scope but not yet implemented |
| SOX ITGC | sox in PROJECT.md, US public company or subsidiary |
Four ITGC domains: Access to Programs, Change Management, Computer Operations, Segregation of Duties |
| HIPAA | hipaa in PROJECT.md, PHI involved |
PHI safeguards, BAA requirements, minimum necessary standard, audit controls |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago Changed f823be1ed64d
- 9d ago First seen · 298 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A eee6cc788dd3
regulated-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (93 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 3,101 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
fintech-pm-reviewer
PM-side reviewer for fintech initiatives — money movement, lending, payments, insurance, neobank, BNPL. Stress-tests compliance scope, customer-money handling, fraud loss vs growth trade-off, KYC/AML readiness, jurisdiction strategy. Pairs with engineering's lending-credit-reviewer + pci-reviewer +…
correction-editor
Review contested civic claims and prepare append-only correction records with retained provenance.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus 4.8 for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
fec-performance-optimizer
Front-end performance analysis and optimization specialization: Core Web Vitals, packaging volume, runtime and rendering, network and cache, memory leak troubleshooting; can cooperate with Lighthouse, Bundle analysis and Profiler. Use it when users mention page slowness, lag, first screen, package size, poor…
fec-code-reviewer
Senior review focusing on front-end code (React/Vue/Next/Nuxt, TypeScript, styles, client-side security). Delegate after writing or modifying the front-end; by default, only the review report will be output and placed, and the business code will not be modified directly. Press CRITICAL→LOW to check, control noise and…
fec-figma-implementer
Focus on implementing the proxy of UI components accurately according to the design draft, and save the implementation report as a Markdown file. Supports six design tools: Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Ink Knife, and Mockup. Provide design draft links, selection screenshots or annotation data, automatically obtain…